Grognor comments on Russian plan for immortality [link] - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Dr_Manhattan 01 August 2012 08:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Grognor 01 August 2012 11:00:20PM 6 points [-]

The poll results are intriguing. 35% would want cybernetic immortality at any and all cost! And yet I don't see 35% of people who can afford it signed up for cryonics.

Comment author: JenniferRM 02 August 2012 12:37:05AM *  12 points [-]

35% of people who read the article and took the quiz right after reading. Admittedly the numbers are larger than I naively expected to get past each stage of filtering. I was thinking maybe 300 people taking the poll total and its over 30k now, with over 10k answering "at any cost". (I would love to see the log files for that page... referring URLs, IP addresses, etc.)

Comment author: shminux 01 August 2012 11:08:49PM 18 points [-]

Because cryonics is not even close to "certain immortality now".

Comment author: Grognor 03 August 2012 10:41:38PM 2 points [-]

"Any and all cost" would subsume low probabilities if it were true (which, of course, it is not).

Comment author: shminux 03 August 2012 10:49:12PM 0 points [-]

I don't see how. To me cost is what you pay, not what you get. If the poll said "an unknown but probably extremely small chance of cybernetic immortality", then it could be comparable to cryonics.

Comment author: JGWeissman 03 August 2012 11:08:51PM *  1 point [-]

If an expectued utility maximizer is willing to pay a cost C to get a benefit with probability ~1, it should be willing to pay p*C to get the same benefit with probability p. If C is unbounded, then so is p*C even for very small p.

Comment author: shminux 04 August 2012 12:01:35AM 1 point [-]

it should be willing to pay pC to get the same benefit with probability p.

This was about real people, not ideal utility maximizers. Even if one agrees with "it should be willing to pay pC to get the same benefit with probability p", which most risk-averse people won't, "Any and all cost" does not mean infinite cost to most people (sacrificing their firstborn is probably not on the list, neither is killing the rest of the humanity).

Comment author: JGWeissman 04 August 2012 02:36:50AM 1 point [-]

If you want to question the assumption that's fine (I agree that people don't really want it at literally any cost), but don't complain that I gave the explanation you said you didn't see of how the assumption implies the conclusion.

Comment author: selylindi 06 August 2012 03:53:18PM *  -1 points [-]

Hey, I'd be more than willing to sign up for a couple hundred years of indentured servitude if that's what it took to pay for several thousand subsequent years. But I can't afford cryonics, and the fact that no one is willing to take up that offer of indentured servitude as payment for cryonics is very strong evidence against cryonics having a noteworthy probability of success.